According to UGO, the “Bad Nanny” achievement is designed to reward players who slaughter “a yet undetermined number of unbaptized infants,” leading INA to say that the game component was “created out of poor taste and bad judgment.”

The group continued:

INA is opposed to video games that promote and encourage players to "kill" babies, even in fantasy play. It is our opinion that this type of play may promote violence towards children. The name of the trophy or achievement, "Bad Nanny," is offensive to our association in that we strive to promote and educate the public regarding the selfless work nannies do to support families by providing quality in-home child care."

INA urged its members to email the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) with concerns and complaints. The ESRB responded, noting that the game has not yet been rated, before adding:

…it should be understood that our job is not to censor potentially tasteless or objectionable content nor dictate to publishers what type of content they may include in their games. ESRB’s role is to objectively evaluate a game’s content and assign age and content ratings that will be helpful in allowing consumers to make informed choices.

Yay! Some real controversy from a real organisation. Although as many have said EA may have had some say in the matter, likely to be they sent the organisation an anonymous letter stating how they found something bad in the game. I'm sure other games companies have used similar methods in the past, just look at Sega and Madworld (that all seemed a bit fishy).

It depends what you define as real controversy. (Most controversy is laughable, this is another example), but unlike the group EA formed originally for some PR, one real group has found something offensive. If something offends a real collective of people and they speak out about it, I define that as controversy (no matter how trivial the gripe is).

"…it should be understood that our job is not to censor potentially tasteless or objectionable content nor dictate to publishers what type of content they may include in their games. ESRB’s role is to objectively evaluate a game’s content and assign age and content ratings that will be helpful in allowing consumers to make informed choices."

PWNED!!!!!!!!!

lol j/k, but seriously esrb pretty much handed their asses to them on this one.

Oh, I know exactly what they're trying for. But it's Nannies pushing for a Nanny state! That's just ripe for humor. If you can't laugh at all the shitting things going on, then you'll just end up depressed from them.

The fact that they know what an achievement is (much less that there's a difference between a trophy on PS3 and achievement of X360) pretty much indicates that the person writing knows more about games than the average person. Someone with that much knowledge of games would not find "Bad Nanny" offensive.

-------
Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

I thought it was a hoax too, but it turns out the whole "Baby-killing achievement" was picked up on by sites like Kotaku and few others, and that the INA have made a statement. All 3 of them are very cross and think EA must be spanked.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

The ESRB was established by the Entertainment Software Association in 1984 because at the time, there was emerging a large push to create regualtion via Congress to control the content in video games. Enough people believed that video games were pushing the envelope of what was acceptable too far, that there was a real chance that, had the ESRB not been created in a compromise move between video game developers and lawmakers, Congress would have crafted laws restricting what video games could be sold to persons under 18.

Now, you have companies, like EA, who take and pull this kind of stunt. Yes, I do believe that this was a marketing stunt. Unfortunately, this is the exact sort of thing that causes some people to feel that the ESRB is ineffectual, or outdated and that we just need to go back to what was happening in the 1980's - a push for federal laws to be passed to restrict certain types of video game sales to minors.

I am NOT in favor of most forms of censorship - and certainly I am not in favor of laws regulating just what video games I can let my 16 year old play. That is a decision that I, as a parent, should make. But when you stand on the rooftops and shout about how vile, disgusting and morally reprehensible your upcoming game is, just so you can sell a few more copies, you are literally handing people the excuses they need to push for the kinds of laws we don't want!

How hard would it be to either make the game with something not as offensive as "baby-killing" in it - or to just not use that as a marketing tactic? If you think the ESRB is censorship, just pray that the ESRB isn't trashed as "insufficient" and federal laws put in its place.

Yes. Because all 3 major consoles telling the video game industry that they will not license AO rated games is the fault of the ESRB. Because every major retailer has told the video games industry that they will not carry AO rated games is the fault of the ESRB.

These businesses have made these policies to be considered "family friendly" so that they can avoid the crap that the world would throw at them for carrying AO rated games.

Yes it is all the ESRB's fault for wanting to have a rating for games they felt should not be played by any child ever.

"The “Bad Nanny” achievement is designed to reward players who slaughter “a yet undetermined number of unbaptized infants,"

Wait.. Unbaptized infants are something to KILL in this game?? Did anyone else start laughing when they read that?? My god, the shitstorm that's going to hit once more people (Especially Religious Conservatives) catch wind of this..

That has been a known aspect for a while. One of the first levels is purgatory and unbaptised children are mutated into these freaky creatures. Deadspace had a similar thing with freaky babies you had to kill (and could curbstomp).

That's so incredibly stupid. The Divine Comedy doesn't start in Limbo, it's AFTER the Inferno, so it doesn't make any sense to start there. Also, there aren't any mutated babies in Limbo, though that is where unbaptized babies go according to Catholic tradition.

So I guess there's even less reason to buy the game since despite what they claim it only has the name in common with the poem.

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Actually in recent years the Catholic church has been moving away from the idea that unbabtised infants end up in limbo. While the Church hasn't removed the concept outright it has been saying that the theory of limbo wasn't ever really considered offically church dogma. Instead its is simply a theory that the church allows it members wether thay consider it to be true or not.

Dude we always knew it wasn't going to have the ssame story. The story of Dante's Inferno wouldn't make a great game (IIRC it's basically Dante gets a guided tour through hell purgatory and heaven and talks to some of the inhabitants).

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds.
Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Great... I see another game not making through the OFLC. I'm of course interested in this game now that I hear you can slaughter infants (maybe they're some kind of demon babies?). I just need the AUD$ to remain strong against the US$ so I can get it from there. It's currently a field day for Australian gamers as we can get a US$50 game for AUD$60-$70 including postage when they usually retail here for AUD$110. Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising was US$40 on Steam and it ended up costing me AUD$44 rather than AUD$100.

Being that this only appears in a comment on an article by someone claiming to be with the INA posting the "official statement" which happens to not be nanny.org, I'm gonna go with EA hoax on this one. Not like I had any interest in buying the game anyway.

Bad Nanny is offensive? Why? The title is a joke as you probably never play as a nanny in the game. Lighten up.

It may promote violence against children? Are you kidding? People are not stupid enough to copy something just because they saw it in a video game.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds.
Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

while I wish I could agree with you, there are some children stupid enough to. I'm trying to remember the cases in particular (weren't there 2 teens who beat a younger sibling to death re-enacting mortal combat moves or something?) but I'm unable to find the article. Granted, these cases may be the media painting it that way and not the actual reason these things happened.

Do I think most adults are going to take a scythe to a small child (probably in a spider costume) no, I don't think thats likely. The game is most likely mature rated, and clearly not intended for those who might re-enact it violently. I'm just trying to put your statement in context/perspective.

I remember that one. But I highly doubt that was the case. It wasn't two siblings, it was one sibling and her, I forgot if it was boyfriend or fiancee. If anything, it was straight-up abuse, and they just labeled it as mimicry to try to get away easier. They weren't children, either; the sister and her boyfriend/fiancee were at least teenagers, if not legal adults (I think it was both; I think the sister was like 16 or 17, and he was a legal adult).

The ESRB responded, noting that the game has not yet been rated, before adding:

…it should be understood that our job is not to censor potentially tasteless or objectionable content nor dictate to publishers what type of content they may include in their games. ESRB’s role is to objectively evaluate a game’s content and assign age and content ratings that will be helpful in allowing consumers to make informed choices.

"It is our opinion that this type of play may promote violence towards children."

I wanted to find this on their website and counter with a simple:

"It is our opinion that this type of play may promote an understanding of the ramifications of life without a mentor. Just because it is your opinion doesn't make it fact, nor a moral compass that everyone must follow."

Yes its an achievement, so its something people will strive for, but they even say "BAD nanny". Noted that key word there. It is not like they are saying this is typical nanny behavior.

If you feel something like this would affect people and their interaction with children, protest that entire baby slaughter aspect of the game, not just the achievement that you think makes you look bad. Seems to me they're just trying to fight the name of the achievement.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

ZippyDSMlee: .....win8 hates any left over hidden install partitions from other version of windows....only waste 5 hours finding that out...its ahrder than you think keeping up with 4 or 5 HDDS......03/03/2015 - 4:44am

Matthew Wilson: I am going to pax east, any games you guys want me to check out?03/02/2015 - 11:23pm

ZippyDSMlee: No one remembers the days of Cinemagic and Cynergy eh? :P, meh even MGS is getting to film like....03/02/2015 - 8:44pm

MechaTama31: I was about to get all defensive about liking Metal Gear Solid, but then I saw that he was talking about "cinematic" as a euphemism for "crappy framerate".03/02/2015 - 8:29pm

prh99: Just replace cinematic with the appropriate synonym for poo and you'll have gist of any press release.03/02/2015 - 5:34pm

Monte: Though from a business side, i would agree with the article. While it would be smarter for developers to slow down, you can't expect EA, Activision or ubisoft to do something like that. Nintnedo's gotta get the third party back.02/28/2015 - 4:36pm

Monte: Though it does also help that nintendo's more colorful style is a lot less reliant on graphics than more realistic games. Wind Waker is over 10 years old and still looks good for its age.02/28/2015 - 4:33pm

Monte: With the Wii, nintnedo had the right idea. Hold back on shiny graphics and focus on the gameplay experience. Unfortunatly everyone else keeps pushing for newer graphics and it matters less and less each generation. I can barely notice the difference02/28/2015 - 4:29pm

Monte: ON third party developers; i kinda think they should slow down to nintendo's pace. They bemoan the rising costs of AAA gaming, but then constantly push for the best graphics which is makes up a lot of those costs. Be easier to afford if they held back02/28/2015 - 4:27pm

Matthew Wilson: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/28/the-world-is-nintendos-if-only-theyd-take-it/ I think this is a interesting op-ed, but yeah it kind of is stating the obvious.02/28/2015 - 2:52pm